The Troubled State of Academic Governance: Some Causes;
Some Solutions

Kenneth E. Andersen

When the American Association of
University Professors (AAUP) was founded, John Dewey essentially advanced a
governance model composed of two parties: the administration and the faculty.
In fact, it could almost be characterized as two aspects of the same persons, as
it was common practice for faculty members to move in and out of administrative
positions. A highly simplified, stereotypical image of a reality that never
existed would picture faculty members largely serving temporarily as
administrators jointly determining the educational policy of the institution for
the Trustees or Regents to adopt. The faculty carried the leading role of
formulating educational policy: curriculum, admissions, standards for
appointment and promotion of peers. They taught, researched and provided
service within the protection of tenure and academic freedom. Individual
faculty members, differing in their strengths and weaknesses, were rewarded to
the degree they contributed to the mission of the institution. Administrators
were responsible for the implementation of policy including the required
budgeting activity.

Recently, this paradigm has
atrophied as the governance process has become increasingly complex, subject to
forces John Dewey never envisioned. Increasingly groups who functioned as fifth
business[*]
have become leading players in the governance process. We need to recognize the
new players in the theatre of institutional governance and we need to understand
how their special interests impact upon the drama of educational policy making.
This review is undertaken for the purposes of stimulating thought about the
changes, not to evaluate or judge their efficacy or inevitability. These
changes apply most fully to comprehensive, large research institutions and to
varying degrees at other types of institutions.

Many of the new players are
internal, members of the campus community:

Professional Staff. We now have a large and growing contingent of
non-teaching professionals carrying various titles. This group includes
researchers, advisors, academic resource people, administrators, managers and,
possibly, coaches. As this group expands, their voice is increasingly
influential. Please note, many of these individuals are performing functions
normally discharged to faculty. Not only have many of these individuals never
been in the professoriate, they have essentially none of the protections of
tenure in most cases.

Part-time
and Non-Tenure Track Faculty. In some institutions, this employee category
outnumbers those tenured and on the tenure track. There are institutions
offering a degree in a curriculum in which there is not a single tenure-track
faculty member. Many of these individuals are excellent teachers and some bring
a special expertise to their teaching. But they are not wedded to the
institution nor does the institution usually accord them benefits, support,
etc. Some accept this as they are “moonlighting,” others are resentful and
bitter.

Senior
Administrators. Whereas presidents, provosts, and deans were once
academicians, intending to return to the professoriate, many are now career
administrators. A substantial number have never been tenured faculty; others
expect (prefer) never to return to that role. Their immediate staff are now
typically academic professionals who have never had nor ever will hold a faculty
position.

System
Administrators. System administrators, as contrasted to campus
administrators, are a product of the growing complexity and size of institutions
of higher education and in some instances the effort to gain some control over
campuses by grouping them in a system. While the system administrators may be
linked to flagship or dominant campuses within the system, increasingly they are
recruited to the position from educational institutions other than those they
will administer.

Support
staff. Clerical, operations and maintenance personnel, custodians,
technicians, etc., are essential to the operation of the institution. Such
personnel are often unionized or civil service employees. Usually the impact of
this group is less directly tied to educational policy than some others being
mentioned, but they have an impact. My institution does not function on those
days negotiated as holidays. We do not close for natural disasters such as
snowstorms – the overtime is too expensive.

Students.
In part as a result of events of the 1960’s and 70’s, students have achieved
much more power in campus decisions. Also, educational policy decisions are
often driven by enrollment considerations. Students often demand a seat on
committees and in governance bodies such as senates. Often they represent a
single interest, have not developed a wide perspective, and are driven by
considerations or a rhetoric largely irrelevant to the real issues. An urgent,
current reality is the fact that students’ views (never monolithic) have become
incredibly Balkanized. We do not deal with one student body or with Greeks and
independents; we must deal with incredibly diverse groups, many not represented
by or actively rejecting existing student governance structures.

Two players of growing importance
are internal to the campus in some senses, external in others:

Disciplines. Disciplinary considerations are central to many university
functions. Faculty are educated within a discipline. The disciplines determine
who publishes and who achieves status in the discipline, which in turn has
implications for appointment, promotion and salary. In many circumstances the
power of the faculty member is the status of that individual in the discipline.
Note also: disciplines draw upon the university’s resources; they do not exist
to serve the university. Many disciplines are tied to accrediting agencies, a
source of growing concern to many. Accreditation requirements place demands
upon the resources and even the governance structures of institutions seeking
certification and require fees to conduct the process as well. Further,
accreditation is required in some instances to obtain federal or state student
aid, equipment, or other support. Faculty and institutions are increasingly
questioning the costs-benefits and complexity of the process.

Trustees.
Regents or trustees have always had a primary role in institutional governance,
but this responsibility was generally exercised prudently although AAUP
standards and Committee A cases may have contributed to this fact and make
manifest many exceptions. Today, trustees are becoming more aggressive in their
direct interference in campus affairs. They appear to be less interested in the
institution per se and more interested in a particular agenda or their own
advancement. Nationally there are growing reports of untoward interference,
politicization, and a decline in the quality of people serving these roles.

The remaining
players are seen as external to the academic community:

State
Coordinating Boards. In some states the legislatively mandated coordinating
boards or boards of review are the fastest growing segment of funds appropriated
to higher education. Such boards may have or seek power beyond making
recommdations relative to tuition levels, allocation or amount of state funding,
curriculum and degree approval, etc. In Illinois the Coordinating Board Chair
recently asked for the power to terminate degree programs at public institutions
of higher education without being required to heed faculty or campus advice or
prerogatives.

State
Legislatures. Public discontent with rising tuition and college costs has
found its voice in legislatures in the call for accountability, often in the
form of outcomes assessment; support for budget cuts for higher education; and
calls for reform. Fueled by tax revolts and diminishing revenues, legislators
view higher education as one of the many special interest groups vying for
funds. Individual legislators often intervene directly in terms of their
special interests as well as constituent-based concerns.

The
Federal Government. The thrust in student assistance funding for the last
decade has shifted from grants to loans. In addition, there has been a decline
in program funding. Federal legislation in areas such as tax and retirement
policies has been detrimental to colleges and universities. Research funding is
unreliable and prone to significant shifts in focus. Federal (and state)
mandates, regulations and burdensome report requirements have greatly increased
costs. One proposed reporting requirement for public higher education in
California was estimated to cost thirty-five million dollars. This estimate
caused the legislature to reject the requirement.

Business
and Industry. The push for academic partnerships with business and industry
raises vexing questions of academic freedom, conflict of interest, and applied
versus basic research. Put bluntly, the goals of business and industry often do
not support basic research nor accord with academic values. Entrepreneurial
faculty seeking research support or contracts or who own their own companies
often produce significant issues of conflict of interest and such ties have been
a factor in falsification of research findings.

Alumni and
Donors. Alums remember the campus as they think it was, not as it is.
Donors tend to give money for specific uses, which may involve distortion of
academic priorities. Gifts rarely include operating expenses, restoration
funds, or direct support of academic programs.

Athletic
Boosters. Many people see higher education only in terms of the athletic
programs’ success or failure. Interest in athletics, fanned by media coverage,
has produced rabid fans across the nation who want “their team” to be #1, not
just in the final four or runner up. One internationally renowned university
found that 90% of its media coverage focused on athletics.

Parents.
Many parents are convinced they are the victim of excessive tuition and fee
charges and paying excessive taxes as well. Further, their children are not
receiving the education to which they are entitled as many critical books and
newspaper reports make patently clear.

The
Public. Rising tuition costs and the plethora of critical reports and books
have contributed to a public loss of confidence in higher education. This is
further exacerbated by the ascendancy of single issue groups, i.e., animal
rights, artistic censors, opponents of sex education, that attack universities
directly and through attempts at legislation.

The Press.
Education is on the public agenda. Higher education is receiving greater media
coverage. But the coverage tends to highlight problems, whether a racial
incident, money scandal or academic dishonesty, rather than the daily successes
of the university.

We may ask: “Has the faculty
moved to the position of being one more third party, one among many? If so, how
do we respond? In my opinion, only the administration can realistically deal
with the third parties; it is the only actor in the drama that can
authoritatively respond to pressures from the various individual interest
groups. How, then, do we as faculty assume governance responsibilities and
reclaim coequal status with administrators in the determination of educational
policy? The challenge to shared governance in the 1990’s is learning how to
deal with the newly powerful contenders moving whether by force of circumstances
or by desire from fifth business to powerful parties in the governance process.

In many senses the culture within
the academy is not constituted to contribute to rebuilding a strong faculty
governance structure. We have lost much of our sense of community and
continuity. We have become isolated in our disciplines as the reward structure
we created pushes us to the discipline rather than to the shared community of
the institution. We have biased our reward system to punish those who commit
time and effort to governance above the level of department and, possibly,
college, and we overtly pressure our younger colleagues to avoid governance
activity in favor of activity that may yield still another publication. Current
governance leaders are aging. As an estimated 50% of the faculty retire or
depart in the next 10 to 15 years, the next generation is not prepared for or,
often, respectful of governance activity. In the shade of mighty oaks, precious
few acorns have rooted. Lastly, this time of severe financial stringency or
crisis is not fertile soil for a resurgence of faculty governance.

Here are some possible
responses. Given the constraints of time, I choose to include more
possibilities rather than develop fully a few alternatives.

I. To
borrow a line from a famous speech, “Cast down your buckets where you (we) are”:

1. Modify
the reward system to a degree to give recognition to meaningful governance
activity.

2.
Obtain support in the form of released time, secretarial resources, budgets for
governance activity and actors.

3.
Offer workshops or provide mentoring to new hands at governance.

4.
Provide opportunities with limited time demands for younger colleagues to
participate in meaningful governance activity.

5.
Recognize service with a personal thank you, commendation, or other recognition;
individually and perhaps institutionally as well.

6. Do
not countenance inactive chairs, inept office seekers/holders, or those who
accept but do not discharge their responsibilities.

II.
Concentrate energies upon key issues where faculty input is important to the
optimum solution. There is an incredible amount of expertise resident among
us. We need to put that expertise to good use.

Insist that the administration share information and
provide the data essential to make informed decisions and to monitor important
activities.

Ad hoc groups and committees and subcommittees
can be powerful tools that our senates and committees can utilize. Avoid
undermining meaningful existing governance structures through joint
appointment, consultation, review, etc., and insisting administratively
appointed committees not usurp the role of regularly constituted committees.

Clarify the role and function of the faculty in terms of
roles within the institution and in governance. Have we ceded roles and
functions that we cannot responsibly delegate or relinquish?

III.
Strengthen interaction with administrators in advance of rather than at times of
tension or stress.

Work to have more faculty moving in and out of
administrative roles and offices: special projects, part-time administrators,
key advisers.

Create advisory boards for key administrators that have
no direct interactions with faculty.

Where they do not exist, create settings and situations
in which administrators report to faculty on agendas and issues (prospective
and retrospective) where a dialogue can occur; as a minimum a
question/commentary and response session.

Lend public support and praise to the administration
when they merit it.

IV. Assert
the prerogatives of governance and of individual faculty members.

Insist on adherence to bylaws, statutes, handbooks, the
social contract.

Recognize the need for a timely decision. This means we
need to move early, and we need to be sure that items presented for decision
have matured to the degree and are framed in ways that facilitate rather than
impede the making of a decision. Accept consensus rather than unanimity. If
we insist on unanimity we become ineffectual and the “world out there” stops
waiting and makes a decision because faculty can never make a decision. After
debate, take a vote and the majority view becomes policy. Most of our
decisions will not cause the world to “move” in the Hemingway sense. The war
to the death within some departments such as the Texas or Columbia English
Departments and some elements within the Harvard Law School suggest the
urgency of resolving internal disputes rather than taking them to the external
world.

Build responsible relationships with the press,
trustees, community leaders, and legislators. This may involve money as well
as time but the results will be significant. (A personal $100 a year donation
resulted in two lunches at the Congressman’s expense each year, immediate name
and face recognition and discussion of one or more issues of concern to higher
education at every session of 40-50 influential community leaders.)

Speak out on higher education issues with neighbors and
friends and in your private life as well as to the community and legislators.
The “crazies” already doing this give faculty activity external to the campus
a bad name. Administrators want to control the public aspect of the
university so they may resist such activity. Keep the administration informed
and don’t worry about being co-opted. Behave responsibly in terms of needs of
the society, the interests of the profession and the institution, and of those
you represent, your constituency.

Obviously there are may other
suggestions of great potential to be explored. You are doing that be being here
today. So in one sense there is no need for a conclusion. I simply need to
stop to enable you to get back to work.

But let me close with one final
observation. As faculty we learn to discipline ourselves, to take extensive
time for study and reflection and to seek and consider possible objections
before we publish, profess, or decide. If we are proactive and able to
anticipate future issues, we may have this luxury with regard to some, perhaps
many educational policy decisions. While we have to recognize the possibility
of an unwarranted stampede to a decision, we must be prepared to provide prompt,
even instantaneous advice/decisions in some situations because the vote is
today, we just learned about it, and it is “go” or “no go”. Sometimes one
faculty leader or one committee will be the only source of that advice. The
governance process must both accommodate this reality and provide the
preparation and experience that permits the right individual or group of
individuals to offer that advice in the interests of the profession, the
institution, and those being represented.

‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’

Kenneth E. Andersen is
Professor Emeritus of Speech Communication at the University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign. He served six years as an Associate Dean and Secretary of
the Faculty of the College of Liberal Arts
and Sciences, three years as Acting Head of the Department of Speech and Hearing
Science, and four years as Deputy Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs. His
activity in campus and university governance for more than 25 years includes
three terms as Chair of the Senate Executive Committee (nee Senate Council); two
terms as Chair of the University Senates Conference and three as Secretary;
chairing various Senate committees including the Budget and Statutes committees
and parliamentarian for the Senate and College. Disciplinary and professional
association activity includes serving as President of the Speech Communication
Assn., Executive Secretary (three years) and President of the Central States
Communication Assn. and President of the Assn. for Communication
Administration. A past member of the National Council of the American Assn. of
University Professors, he has chaired three national committees of the AAUP as
well as been chapter and Illinois Conference President. His teaching interests
lie in the areas of persuasion, communication ethics, and parliamentary
procedure, and the development of constitutions and bylaws.

This manuscript constitutes
a revision of remarks presented at a December 1992, Conference on Governance for
the CUNY.

[*]
In Fifth Business, Robertson Davies notes that those stage characters
essential to working out the plot as opposed to the major, active players,
whether villain or hero, were called “fifth business.”